Why Can’t Silicon Valley Solve Its Diversity Problem?

Another factor:
Title IX has become an industry, particularly in the public sector and the university systems.
There are a large number of people and organizations that have a vested interest in keeping this myth alive.
 
It's not even that. It's a lack of parents showing their children new things. Girls are expected to do X and boys are expected to do Y.

I have a myriad of preteen females in my family. Guess what color they all say they like? Pink. I quizzed (aka military questioned ) some and asked them exactly why do you like pink. They told me because someone on a cartoon or TV wears pink. Oh and their toys are pink. Asked their dads why they buy all the pink crap in the store? Because it's what I'm programmed to do. /facepalm

The teenage girls in my family are few, but they still carry the "pink" gene. They are literally embarrassed to say anything other than pink because everything else is the "wrong" answer. Found out one likes electronics. Would have NEVER known that going by the regiment of cooking and cleaning that her family puts her through. She has a 2% chance of doing something that she actually likes when she goes to college. I'm expecting that she's going to be a straight A student that becomes a housewife based on the way she is shoved into a box at home. I guess she will have some really smart boys since she is the top of her class if intelligence is hereditary.

While I certainly won't disagree there is a social aspect, I think there is also natural bias.

I have some very liberal friends (works for local sierra club and local arts funding organization). They had a boy a few years ago and were very attentive in trying not to give gender bias. Their son loves nothing but trucks and trains, blue etc etc.

Was the society influence too hidden and bled through? Is there some natural attraction to certain things based on gender.

I would guess a bit of both and the subject will always be muddy, since there are soo many factors involved.

I tend to agree social bias should be addressed and we should understand that certain types of people tend to prefer certain areas of skill/knowledge/work. Neither of which are likely to exist in even ratios.

That said we are STILL fighting similar fights over and over regarding bias and unequal treatment of others (gay marriage recently). We apparently have to hit our head against the "all men are created equal" multiple times, over and over (yes I know women isn't mentioned, give history a break). Cause you know THIS time it is different cause excuse 1, 2 or 3 /facepalm.

This attitude and odd circumstance leads to people to over react I believe, which then takes away from making real progress in accepting a more "natural" society, if there can be one.
 
I hate to say, but teen girls just don't latch onto math as much as guys. Doing my STEM BS and MS, there were like less than 25% women - closer to 10% actually..

You need to have this desire when you're younger, so you learn math and science in high school well enough that that type of thinking become a part of who you are.

I think hiring quotas are stupid. Hire based on ability. If there aren't enough Gay Asian Women in wheelchairs, then that's just the way it is.
 
I thought the title was "Why Can’t Silicon Valley Solve Its SLAVERY Problem?"

It's not even that. It's a lack of parents showing their children new things. Girls are expected to do X and boys are expected to do Y.

I have a myriad of preteen females in my family. Guess what color they all say they like? Pink. I quizzed (aka military questioned ) some and asked them exactly why do you like pink. They told me because someone on a cartoon or TV wears pink. Oh and their toys are pink. Asked their dads why they buy all the pink crap in the store? Because it's what I'm programmed to do. /facepalm

The teenage girls in my family are few, but they still carry the "pink" gene. They are literally embarrassed to say anything other than pink because everything else is the "wrong" answer. Found out one likes electronics. Would have NEVER known that going by the regiment of cooking and cleaning that her family puts her through. She has a 2% chance of doing something that she actually likes when she goes to college. I'm expecting that she's going to be a straight A student that becomes a housewife based on the way she is shoved into a box at home. I guess she will have some really smart boys since she is the top of her class if intelligence is hereditary.

I must be doing something right, both my kids (boy and girl) change their favorite color every week it seems.
 
I could not care less if a company in Silicon Valley employs only left-handed transvestites against global warming, angry lesbians in Burkenstocks, or white heterosexual males. Hire the best and build a product that works. Fuck diversity.
 
god damn free society.

giving people a choice is communism i say force them in to careers they don't want.

it's not like it's the rest of their life or anything.
 
Why can't it solve it? Easy!

-insert every and any excuse under the sun except that maybe the people they hired were more qualified for the job at the time they were hiring-
 
In the case of not hiring women, companies may be reluctant to hire a worker who could become pregnant and have to go on maternity leave on their dime. Therefore they have no incentive to hire women either. Thus, they pay less for the same skillset or discourage hiring females entirely. The only solution I can think of to that is to make it a blanket policy where men and women can take the same leave for the same amount of time.

That's been a thing in the EU for a while now. It seems to work. I know a few males who have done that.

Equality (equal rights, equal responsibilities) solves many problems
 
I find it odd that not one person I have EVER had this discussion with has said anything to the effect that is described in this article or any of the "diversity problem" statements being made lately. Nobody actually in this industry believes that nonsense. Sure there are isolated instances of sexism, racism, whatever. Sometimes at major companies in Silicon Valley and all over the country. But those are typically one in a thousand of companies, and not representative of the general IT population. Most of us are hyper-logical, and really honestly DON'T give a shit about anything other than your ability to do the damn job. Occasionally some wack-a-do who got burned by one of those thousands of companies writes an article like this and everybody freaks out.

Personally, I have had woman and minority bosses and co-workers, most of whom are just as competent and capable as any "white man" I have ever worked worked with. I have also worked with many white men and Asians that are complete morons. Again nothing to do with race or gender, but solely with mental capacity and patience for this type of work, as well problem solving ability. That is the only factor on which I judge my peers.

Everything that is being said in this discussion I believe to be true; regarding instinctual/learned behavior, parenting patterns, and overall desire of an individual to pursue a certain career path. The only thing that is going to change that is time. It can not be forced or coerced, or taught for that matter. Anything else that anybody can possibly say on the subject is complete and utter bullshit.
 
Except this isn't a fact. Women and minority participation in STEM fields vary wildly country by country. If it were really true that genetically all men did this and all women did that then for the most part we should see the same thing country to country. But we don't... not even close. In particular women in STEM in the US it's like 24% while world wide it's much higher. Communist country or no it's higher elsewhere than here. To boil the topic down to "women aren't interested in STEM," or the mere discussion of the topic is man-hating shows a lack of inquisitiveness and binary thinking, which is troublesome.

Honestly, I don't know the facts for sure, just the stuff I've seen parroted on youtube. I'm guessing here, but all things being equally available to women which fields would these choose? Most say the more social fields like HR, they prefer to work with other humans instead of hardware. So in other cultures (outside of the US) like in China and India wouldn't they be more willing to take any career they can get into? Even if it's something they're really not that interested in? I'm not assuming women aren't interested in tech just majority wise, probably not. Just like fields that are dominated by women, is that because men are not interested in it or is there a stigma attached? Like say being a male nurse.
 
Sorry but your argument is not persuasive. Is participation in other countries higher because feminists have legislated so called equality? You are making a broad statement without any supporting data. There are notable examples of prominent women in technology and science but they are the exceptions...
I'm not giving you an argument. I'm giving you facts. There's a difference. If you want to ignore them that's on you. Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. On one hand you are making the argument that women are genetically inferior in STEM yet they have a higher participation rate through forced diversity in countries that have some of the poorest equality programs of any country. Do you actually believe there are more robust diversity programs in India or Mongolia than the US?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_STEM_fields

United States
According to the Census Bureau's 2009 American Community Survey, women comprise 48 percent of the U.S. workforce but just 24 percent of workers in STEM fields. Half as many women work in STEM jobs as would be expected if gender representation in STEM professions mirrored the overall workforce. "

Mongolia
According to UNESCO's data from 2012 and 2011 respectively, 40.2% of students enrolled in science programs and 49% of researchers in science, technology, and innovation in Mongolia are female. Traditionally, nomadic Mongol culture was fairly egalitarian, with both women and men raising children, tending livestock, and fighting in battle, which mirrors the relative equality of women and men in Mongolia’s modern-day workforce.
 
I married a STEM PHD, my wife games (loves bethesda and mass effect rpgs, is a Civ prodigy and beat the last one on diety), programs and thinks calculus is fun. She has no lack of ability or interest in the field. But we both also wanted a family and balancing those goals has been a struggle.

Before college, every social guidance from family and public school tried to push her in directions she had no interest in. Once she got into a college math program, the opposite actually happened - they wanted to guide her into pure math (because it had the lowest female %, raising that % would look good for the school). But she went her own direction, managing to get through grad school and postdocs while having two kids. It can work, but you have to go against the grain a bit and split the burden of kids as much as possible so neither career is strangled.
 
I'm not giving you an argument. I'm giving you facts. There's a difference. If you want to ignore them that's on you. Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. On one hand you are making the argument that women are genetically inferior in STEM yet they have a higher participation rate through forced diversity in countries that have some of the poorest equality programs of any country. Do you actually believe there are more robust diversity programs in India or Mongolia than the US?
Sorry but your opinion is not a fact. It is illogical to conclude that because women are less interested in STEM professions that they are genetically inferior. Men and women are different. Difference does not imply superiority or inferiority. Higher participation through forced diversity is irrelevant when the American model produces superior results.

What "you" are arguing for is discriminatory policies against males and I presume white and asian males in particular. That makes your agenda racist and sexist. You can prattle on about the feminist agenda but that doesn't make you enlightened.
 
I wonder when the study will come out that says "oil rigs" can't solve their diversity problem.

We don't even have equality of opportunity anymore. minorities get subsidized and get better opportunities.

Are they actually looking for the manbearpig? There should be 50% of every minority in every position of power?
 
How to fix it?

For each recruiting event you hold at MIT and Cal, hold one at Howard and Morgan State.
For each recruiting event you hold at Barnard and Spelman, hold one at Hampden-Sydney and Morehouse.

If you're only recruiting from a very small college pool that YOU "think" is only the best, you're losing out on a lot of quality talent.

That's how diversity, equal opportunity, and Affirmative Action/Title IX are supposed to work, btw - it's not really that complicated.
 
Except this isn't a fact. Women and minority participation in STEM fields vary wildly country by country. If it were really true that genetically all men did this and all women did that then for the most part we should see the same thing country to country. But we don't... not even close. In particular women in STEM in the US it's like 24% while world wide it's much higher. Communist country or no it's higher elsewhere than here. To boil the topic down to "women aren't interested in STEM," or the mere discussion of the topic is man-hating shows a lack of inquisitiveness and binary thinking, which is troublesome.
In countries where more choice in education and jobs are allowed, the disparity in STEM is higher.
 
How to fix it?

For each recruiting event you hold at MIT and Cal, hold one at Howard and Morgan State.
For each recruiting event you hold at Barnard and Spelman, hold one at Hampden-Sydney and Morehouse.

If you're only recruiting from a very small college pool that YOU "think" is only the best, you're losing out on a lot of quality talent.

That's how diversity, equal opportunity, and Affirmative Action/Title IX are supposed to work, btw - it's not really that complicated.
The second rate technology companies like Intel and Adobe really don't seem to interview junior candidates outside of their certain chosen schools. Based on my experiences, if you want a job at a reputable technology company, you really ought to go to a solid, top 50 CS/CE/EE program.
 
I'm not giving you an argument. I'm giving you facts. There's a difference. If you want to ignore them that's on you. Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. On one hand you are making the argument that women are genetically inferior in STEM yet they have a higher participation rate through forced diversity in countries that have some of the poorest equality programs of any country. Do you actually believe there are more robust diversity programs in India or Mongolia than the US?


I will raise my concern with you again over your rational for these differences.

You raised the point that in countries that have less opportunity, that often times there is a higher ratio of females to males in STEM type job areas. I will point right back to this and suggest that it has less to do with "want" and more to do with "need".

I have seen good IT people who did not have a "gift" for the work. But they had a strong work ethic. They had to work much harder to be good, but they managed to be good all the same. You go to these countries and these people take these jobs because they "need" the work and they work hard to gain it, and this is based on need.

Here in American, young people go to school and major in useless studies, waste their education on "wants" and "likes" instead of focusing on needs because they have never actually needed anything. They indulge themselves to their own harm.

Go somewhere else and you see people with a different attitude and it comes down to the Benjamins brother and they will work their ass off to earn them.

No need here........ the outcome reflects.

EDIT: And like most things, it's not really down to a simple explanation and a single cause. There are multiple factors at work. I am just pointing out some of it.
 
It's not even that. It's a lack of parents showing their children new things. Girls are expected to do X and boys are expected to do Y.

I have a myriad of preteen females in my family. Guess what color they all say they like? Pink. I quizzed (aka military questioned ) some and asked them exactly why do you like pink. They told me because someone on a cartoon or TV wears pink. Oh and their toys are pink. Asked their dads why they buy all the pink crap in the store? Because it's what I'm programmed to do. /facepalm

The teenage girls in my family are few, but they still carry the "pink" gene. They are literally embarrassed to say anything other than pink because everything else is the "wrong" answer. Found out one likes electronics. Would have NEVER known that going by the regiment of cooking and cleaning that her family puts her through. She has a 2% chance of doing something that she actually likes when she goes to college. I'm expecting that she's going to be a straight A student that becomes a housewife based on the way she is shoved into a box at home. I guess she will have some really smart boys since she is the top of her class if intelligence is hereditary.

Yeah, my also GF grew up in a poor environment. Father was a nerd, but he never encouraged her to push herself technically. He gave his time and the new computer to his son.

She ended-up going to college for Creative Writing, and dropped out after she realized it was a waste of time and money.

Five years later (after being surrounded by several better influences), she finally realizes she's an ace at Chemistry, and she's now in for her Chem E degree. It boggles my mind how easily she grasps it, a subject I always found tedious :D

But some people never get that second chance. Parents really should open the minds of their children, and encourage them to dream.

THAT is the NUMBER ONE reason we have a shortage of females in STEM. They have the intelligence, but some choose family, while others never get the encouragement. It would be a lot closer if we could fix the latter.
 
Last edited:
Sorry but your opinion is not a fact. It is illogical to conclude that because women are less interested in STEM professions that they are genetically inferior. Men and women are different. Difference does not imply superiority or inferiority. Higher participation through forced diversity is irrelevant when the American model produces superior results. What "you" are arguing for is discriminatory policies against males and I presume white and asian males in particular. That makes your agenda racist and sexist. You can prattle on about the feminist agenda but that doesn't make you enlightened.

e9ydq.jpg


You must really have a problem with reading comprehension. Where did I say that "women are less interested in STEM professions that they are genetically inferior?" I also haven't brought up race at ALL. So basically this is a Pavlovian response. That would explain why the word "opinion" was used when someone provided you with an actual study on the issue. Am I "enlightened"? No. Then again I never claimed to be and my reading comprehension skills are pretty good. The same doesn't appear to be applicable to you.

What "you" are arguing for is discriminatory policies against males and I presume white and asian males in particular. That makes your agenda racist and sexist. You can prattle on about the feminist agenda but that doesn't make you enlightened.

What is this? Is this the new "I have tons of << insert minority here>> friends so I couldn't possibly be a racist," meme. I have to give it to you though. For you to try and actually preach on about how someone else is racist (even though the first person to bring up race was you) and then go on and to try to put each race in order to your perceived notion of excellence is quite amazing. It's BS of course, and meets the actual definition of a racist, but it is still amazing to see you try and pull it off.
 
e9ydq.jpg


You must really have a problem with reading comprehension. Where did I say that "women are less interested in STEM professions that they are genetically inferior?" I also haven't brought up race at ALL. So basically this is a Pavlovian response. That would explain why the word "opinion" was used when someone provided you with an actual study on the issue. Am I "enlightened"? No. Then again I never claimed to be and my reading comprehension skills are pretty good. The same doesn't appear to be applicable to you.



What is this? Is this the new "I have tons of << insert minority here>> friends so I couldn't possibly be a racist," meme. I have to give it to you though. For you to try and actually preach on about how someone else is racist (even though the first person to bring up race was you) and then go on and to try to put each race in order to your perceived notion of excellence is quite amazing. It's BS of course, and meets the actual definition of a racist, but it is still amazing to see you try and pull it off.
No... You said: "On one hand you are making the argument that women are genetically inferior" which I never did. I don't think you should make accusations about reading comprehension when you can't even keep track of what you said...

In as far as you are arguing for a feminist interpretation of the data it is logical to conclude you are a feminist. Feminists believe that women are under-represented in STEM because of discrimination rather than a lack of interest and seek to impose equality through affirmative action which many (including myself) believe represents discrimination against men (and in particular white and asian men) ergo as a feminist you are promoting a sexist (and racist) agenda to promote women, simply because they are women, over better qualified (white and asian) men.

Feminists are racist and sexist. You are a feminist therefore you are racist and sexist.
 
well if the only applicants that show up are non minority well that's not the applicant who wants a job problem. it is a I don't want to work for it problem.
 
No... You said: "On one hand you are making the argument that women are genetically inferior" which I never did.
Which isn't the same thing as me saying they are. You and I are not the same nouns. Talk about inferiority....sheesh. Maybe since you believe you are genetically superior you just need a simple English 101 class to catch you up with the other people who speak English as their second language.

In as far as you are arguing for a feminist interpretation of the data it is logical to conclude you are a feminist. Feminists believe that women are under-represented in STEM because of discrimination rather than a lack of interest and seek to impose equality through affirmative action which many (including myself) believe represents discrimination against men (and in particular white and asian men) ergo as a feminist you are promoting a sexist (and racist) agenda to promote women, simply because they are women, over better qualified (white and asian) men.

Feminists are racist and sexist. You are a feminist therefore you are racist and sexist.

So me providing information not written by myself and published in a encyclopedia proves I'm sexist (which I didn't make arguments against women so go figure on your rational there) and racist (even though I wasn't the first bring up race, nor the one singling out superiority of some over others )? It looks like to me the only person having problem with either is you. Like I posted before projection projection everywhere. You can't even post a single study to back up your claims. Instead we have more "Deep Thoughts" pulled from the nether regions of "thejokker," which more than explains the maturity level I'm dealing with.


For your reference.

While your "I'm rubber your glue" way of thinking of the world is interesting ..... for a five year old, it doesn't really mean you have an "enlightened" point of view. If anything it proves that your delusions have escaped the asylum and your brain is merely their prisoner. I'll just wait for you to post any study that can prove what you believe... not that I'll be holding my breath. In fact if you can't prove anything you are about to respond with I'll just forget it all together. I'm not one to have discussions with the simple.
 
Which isn't the same thing as me saying they are. You and I are not the same nouns. Talk about inferiority....sheesh. Maybe since you believe you are genetically superior you just need a simple English 101 class to catch you up with the other people who speak English as their second language.



So me providing information not written by myself and published in a encyclopedia proves I'm sexist (which I didn't make arguments against women so go figure on your rational there) and racist (even though I wasn't the first bring up race, nor the one singling out superiority of some over others )? It looks like to me the only person having problem with either is you. Like I posted before projection projection everywhere. You can't even post a single study to back up your claims. Instead we have more "Deep Thoughts" pulled from the nether regions of "thejokker," which more than explains the maturity level I'm dealing with.


For your reference.

While your "I'm rubber your glue" way of thinking of the world is interesting ..... for a five year old, it doesn't really mean you have an "enlightened" point of view. If anything it proves that your delusions have escaped the asylum and your brain is merely their prisoner. I'll just wait for you to post any study that can prove what you believe... not that I'll be holding my breath. In fact if you can't prove anything you are about to respond with I'll just forget it all together. I'm not one to have discussions with the simple.
You realize you are the one implying your own superiority at every turn. Despite your attacks on my reading comprehension it appears you are the one lacking. Note in post #6 I cited a study that demonstrates IT companies are more likely to hire a qualified woman than a man. How ever did you miss that?

Likewise your meager cognitive abilities fails to grasp that you are defending the feminist position. You are defending a sexist, racist viewpoint ergo one would naturally presume you are also a sexist and a racist. Are you a woman or a woman trapped in a man's body?
 
You realize you are the one implying your own superiority at every turn. Despite your attacks on my reading comprehension it appears you are the one lacking. Note in post #6 I cited a study that demonstrates IT companies are more likely to hire a qualified woman than a man. How ever did you miss that?

Likewise your meager cognitive abilities fails to grasp that you are defending the feminist position. You are defending a sexist, racist viewpoint ergo one would naturally presume you are also a sexist and a racist. Are you a woman or a woman trapped in a man's body?
A) That wasn't to me and
B) Breitbart / Interviewing.io from Milo?

Really? You might as well have given me a study from the KKK. I'm expecting Stanford and you give me fakenews.com as your example. LOL OK Dude.
 
A) That wasn't to me and
B) Breitbart ?

Really? You might as well have given me a study from the KKK. I'm expecting Stanford and you give me fakenews.com as your example. LOL OK Dude.

Some of the Mensa members on here think Breitbart is real news
 
A) That wasn't to me and
B) Breitbart / Interviewing.io from Milo?

Really? You might as well have given me a study from the KKK. I'm expecting Stanford and you give me fakenews.com as your example. LOL OK Dude.
...and that is your problem... Your mind is closed; not unlike an ostrich with it's head in the sand. It is a article about a study where tech workers were interviewed. There was a control group of men and women and an experimental groups where the voices were altered so that men sounded like women and women sounded like men. The experimenters hypothesized that men would be preferred, exposing a gender bias, however the men who sounded like women were the highest rated and the women who sounded like men were rated as low as the women (to the surprise of the experimental team).

I have a nephew who is a recent college graduated and is a male Emergency Ward RN (and making great money straight out of college). Male RN's are under represented in the nursing profession yet nobody is claiming discrimination because there isn't any. Most men simply are not interested in becoming male nurses much in the same way that most women are simply not interested in IT. Feminist's claim discrimination but there is little evidence to support their position. They seek to impose hiring quota's that will have the net effect of discriminating against more qualified men in favor of less qualified women. The study cited in the BreitBart article suggests that qualified women are already given hiring preferences.

Why do you support radical feminists who seek to discriminate against men?
 
...and that is your problem... Your mind is closed; not unlike an ostrich with it's head in the sand.
Not at all. I'm not going to even consider a Neo-Nazi site as a news platform. There's no problem over here. If you are going to use sources then generally they should be apolitical. It would be no better than me showing you a study conducted by Al Gore. Would you accept that? Not likely, which is why I would never use a source that's so political. Furthermore since that site is apart of the "Alt-Right" collection of news sources pretty much every argument that you've made thus far can be completely tossed out the window. You might convince someone else of your neutrality when dealing with issues about minorities (whatever the category) but you're not convincing me whatsoever. It's not that I can't be convinced it's that I will not be convinced by a source that goes out of it's way to persecute minorities and then call it news. To me it's no better than the propaganda handed out in Nazi-Germany. Aside from gluing yourself to Asians (still don't know what that's about) they've said all of the same things you've said in this thread.

Why do you support radical feminists who seek to discriminate against men?
Considering every single statistic we have with regards to pay, equal opportunity, etc., this question is like asking why peanut butter tastes like jelly when the obvious answer is that it doesn't. I'm a guy, so you think I'm going to support someone discriminating against me? Do you think switching the nouns and subjects within a sentence is all you need to do? I won't even get into the fact that quotas don't exist in the private sector. While it's entertaining of you to victimize yourself when there's nothing to substantiate it, all of this really comes down to one simple thing. You are butthurt that if someone else has an equal shot then that might mean that your position in the majority is being threatened. So rather than being better by bettering yourself you would rather be ironically a victim when there is no justification for it whatsoever.
 
Just caught this thread , and wanted to throw in my personal experiences with such as an IT engineer for going on 20 years , plus teaching CCNA/MS/Comptia etc for about 15 years , but mainly being a dad who spoils his boy and girl.

On the engineer job front , been repeated many times , worked at two firms , over those years (really same one just one of partners split off etc) , and I'd say we've gotten one female application for tech work for every 100 male ones. Not much we can really do about that.

Onto second job front , nighttime instructor couple nights a week. In a class of 20 , one girl ,maybe. And I've got ages 18 straight out of high school to 65 year old retired military vets just wanting to study and everything between. Not much can do about that.

Now onto Dad front. 7 year old boy, 5 year old daughter , both with own Ipads , computer/laptop and so on. Daughter is WAY better than son in school as far as letters, reading , coloring and so on. He's good at math and that's it. (which I give my wife hell about as she's Asian and they should both be excellent at math :p).

Their interests at home mix some, they play well together for siblings of that age , and often play Minecraft together ,both on the computers after they outgrew it on the ipads . She's good at it , but likes to make cute little houses , watch the animals run around etc. He's excellent at building huge stadiums and such. Then he blows the shit up, spawns mobs and goes on a killing spree while she screams at the top of her lungs and they have to be separated. She then goes on to play some makeover game while he plays Battlefront or some other game where he can shoot ,maim , kill and blow things up. Of which she has zero interest in.

Then there's the more interesting to me difference , not only does she tire of computer games far before him , she has zero , zero interest in what's inside them. When I build rigs at home for myself or for him or clients you can't keep his head out of the boxes or cases. And she's very smarl , loves to design and organize things , has better language skills than him , and is probably on the way to gifted classes according to the teachers , but show her the parts inside her computer ? Meh. An hour of minecraft or barbi horse game's enough , no killing preferred , while he's watching youtube videos of how to add ram and how to play the next game etc.

I know it's just my kids and not a large group , but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that just maybe girls and boys are different from birth and there's nothing to "fix" , that most males like certain things , and most females like certain things.

Yes , your're going to have exceptions , but why try and say there should be more of those ? Maybe the norm is ok ? God forbid that we just accept men and women are different.
 
This is a society problem, and I'm not sure this is the level to fix it at.

As an example, bank regulators have gone after lenders for disparate impact, that is, unintentional lending policies that disproportionately affected minorities even if they were based purely on things like income and credit score. The reason that happens is that, we as a society have done a shitty job getting past nearly 300 years of some pretty nasty shit and giving people equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Those minorities are effected because, in general, we as a society are still not starting them out at an equal level and they're less likely to have the income, savings and other opportunities as a white counterpart (on average).

There is a ton of implicit bias in everyone, myself included, that without conscious effort at an individual level, won't go away. There's been some interesting studies on this that I feel are pretty telling:

The same resume sent out with a white sounding name vs a black sounding name will take something like 1/4 the tries to get an interview.
In a test of a pedestrian standing at a crosswalk waiting to cross, twice as many cars passed by without stopping for a minority vs a white person.

We have to reconcile these things internally, as well as, in my opinion, opportunity equalizing policies such as better early education, preschool, daycare, etc that depends less on local property taxes. But seeing the rise of stuff like the alt-right, seems we're going in the opposite direction.
 
'Your mind is closed; not unlike an ostrich with it's head in the sand.'
Not at all. I'm not going to even consider a Neo-Nazi site as a news platform.

Incoherence, a contradiction in consecutive sentences.

Yes, your mind is closed, you have written off Breitbart as a Neo-Nazi site and refuse to credit anything there.

Breitbart= highly partisan for the right, not unlike many(most?) liberal websites. Definitely Trump partisans (just as nearly all of the media were Clinton partisans). But show me one shred of evidence that Breitbart is a 'Neo-Nazi' site. I think their lead editor is a conservative Jew.
 
Shouldn't the thread title start, "Why doesn't..." ...?

There's no problem to begin with. There's no campaigns to fix diversity in fields dominated by women or minorities, or in fields like trash collection which is almost all men. This is nothing more than finding a problem where there isn't one, creating a victim and an enemy and trying to gain power by claiming moral justification of being in the right and forced guilt.
 
Back
Top